- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36031-DB WP No. 47 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2019 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DIVISION, MANDYA. 4. THE TAHSILDAR K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) AND: SRI J RAJEGOWDA S/O SRI JAVAREGOWDA, WORKED AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KAMBADAHALLI CIRCLE, BENDIGANVILLE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.RASHMI - ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36031-DB WP No. 47 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 16.06.2017 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.5643/2010 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The State Authorities in Revenue Department, aggrieved by order dated 16.06.2017 in Application No.5643/2010 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) Bengaluru, allowing respondent's application by quashing the order of penalty of reducing the respondent's pay to the minimum, has filed this writ petition. 2. Heard learned AGA for the petitioner and perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Learned AGA would submit that after detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, appointed to enquire into the allegations contained in Charge Memo dated 18.04.2004, submitted Enquiry Report dated 15.06.2007 holding, charges against the petitioner as proved. The respondent was issued with second - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36031-DB WP No. 47 of 2019 show cause notice and on obtaining reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of reduction of respondent's pay to the minimum. Questioning the said penalty, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in the above stated application. Vide order dated 16.06.2017, the Tribunal set aside the order of penalty only on the ground that, when the Disciplinary Authority initiated proceedings under Rule 12 of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA Rules 1957') for imposition of minor penalty, could not have imposed major penalty under the CCA Rules, 1957, without going into any other aspect raised by the respondent. 4. Learned AGA would contend that the Tribunal committed a grave error in setting aside the order of penalty and further the learned AGA would submit that, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that when the Disciplinary Authority initiated enquiry under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1957, it could not have imposed major penalty, ought to have remanded the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing minor penalty prescribed under the aforesaid Rules. Thus, the learned AGA prays for remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing minor punishment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36031-DB WP No. 47 of 2019 5. Sri V.B.Vijakumar, learned counsel for the respondent appearing through video conferencing, would submit that when a defect is pointed out by the respondent, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order of penalty. Thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in quashing the order of penalty dated 27.12.2007. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has allowed the application of the petitioner only on the ground that, while proceedings are initiated under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules 1957, the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed major penalty under Rule 8(v) of the CCA Rules 1957. The Tribunal has not found the enquiry defective or lack of opportunity to the respondent. Moreover, the respondent has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal before this Court. 8. When the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that when the enquiry is initiated under Rule 12 of the CCA Rules 1957, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36031-DB WP No. 47 of 2019 the Disciplinary Authority could not have imposed major penalty, the appropriate course for the Tribunal was to remand the matter after setting aside the order of penalty to the Disciplinary Authority for imposing penalty in terms of Rule 12 of the CCA Rules 1957 To the above extent, the impugned order shall have to be quashed, remanding the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to impose appropriate punishment. 9. Hence, the following : ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii)The impugned order dated 16.06.2017 passed in Application No.5643/2010 by the Tribunal is set aside; and so also the order of penalty dated 27.12.2007 (Annexure.A-7) bearing No.EST(2)56/2005-06 is quashed; iv) Matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority to take appropriate decision to impose minor punishment in terms of Rule 12 of the CCA Rules, 1957. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36031-DB WP No. 47 of 2019 v) Time for compliance is three months from the date of uploading the order on the Website of this Court. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8